I'll agree that "discarnate" is an excellent substitution for "dead"--concision typically prefers Anglo-Saxon words though--and that its connotations are much more accurate when describing the state of those in Spirit than are the connotations of "dead." But for me, there is a larger issue at stake: we have to stop the near-universal narrative that death is bad, and that it is the end of individual existence. Death is a mere moment of an eternal journey, and it is no more significant than a person on a road trip deciding to switch cars. I can see both sides of this issue though, and my opinion is not as strong as it likely seems. This same sort of conundrum also appeared around the identity of Jesus though. The oldest members of Afterlife Forums--I'm not sure if you had joined yet, Mac--will recall that in the beginning, we used to refer to Jesus here by His aramaic name, Yeshua. Why? Because the Christians had ruined the name "Jesus" with inaccurate connotations of a judgmental savior figure. Moreover, "Jesus" is nothing like the original name. (His name in English would actually be Joshua, which is much closer to Yeshua, if one wishes to get technical about it.) So, the argument was made that this Aramaic name would more accurately represent Him. Roberta even used the name "Yeshua" throughout her first edition of The Fun of Dying. Eventually though, we came to realize that we needn't avoid those old, outdated connotations; we needed to confront and disprove them, and the best way to do that was to reclaim Jesus' name as it appears in common usage. New editions of The Fun of Dying use Jesus, as does Roberta's Liberating Jesus--a name which those in Spirit picked out. I think the same argument can be made for "dead" and "dying."